بایگانی برچسب برای: حسین حیدرپور

پرسش و پاسخ با گلن نیلی-105

Since Mastering Elliott Wave, have you developed new ways of applying TIME to categorize corrections?

ANSWER:

In Mastering Elliott Wave (MEW) I cover general TIME relationships as they apply to impulsions and corrections, but a more sophisticated perspective has emerged since I wrote MEW nearly 20 years ago. Below is a description of how TIME behaves in Flats, Zigzags, Triangles, Diametrics, Symmetricals and Impulsions.

FLATS and ZIGZAGS (3 segment patterns)

1. The time differences between waves in Flats and Zigzags is greater than in any other correction.

2. If waves-a and b are about equal in time, wave-c will usually equal a+b in time.

3. If wave-b is much larger than wave-a in time, wave-c will equal the time of (a+b)/2.

4. Wave-b can NEVER take less time than wave-a in a Flat or Zigzag. 

5. Based on the above, this means wave-c always takes more time than wave-a in Flats and Zigzags.

6. Over all other corrections, Zigzags allow for the greatest price differences between waves. 

TRIANGLES (5 segment patterns)

1. Time differences between waves in a Triangle continue to be measurable, but are less obvious than what is seen in Flats and Zigzags.

2. If waves-a and b are about equal in time, wave-c will equal a+b in time.

3. If wave-b is much larger than wave-a in time, wave-c will equal the time of (a+b)/2.

4. Wave-b is allowed to take less time than wave-a IF it is smaller than wave-a in price. If it does, it almost always means the Triangle will possess what I call NEoWave Reverse Alternation (read about this in the Question of the Week section by doing a search for “Reverse Alternation”). 

5. Based on the above, this means wave-c always takes more time than wave-a in Flats and Zigzags.

DIAMETRICS (7 segment patterns)

1. These patterns began to appear in the early 90’s as the market’s way to adjust to the increasing popularity of wave theory (too many people were looking for the same things, so the market created new ways of behaving). 

2. They were the first patterns I witnessed where most wave segments took about the same amount of time, with one or two of the waves consuming a little more (or little less) time than the others. 

3. While most waves consume a similar amount of time, they do NOT consume a similar amount of price. A Diametric will possess an obvious expansionary or contractionary bias during the first four waves of the pattern; that bias will reverse during the second half of the formation. 

SYMMETRICALS (9 segment patterns)

1. This pattern emerged around 2001 as the S&P went through its transition from a bull to bear market for the first time in more than a decade. 

2. Their unique characteristic is that most of their waves consume about the same amount of time and price. Two of the waves may consume a little more (or a little less) time than the others and two of the waves (possibly the same two) will consume a little more (or a little less) price than the others. 

3. Of all patterns, Symmetricals all for the least price and time differences between waves. 

What we can derive from the above list, which is a NEoWave discovery, is that 3-segment corrections allow for the greatest time differences. As you move through 5, 7 and 9 segment formations, the allowed price and time differences continue to diminish with Symmetricals allowing for the least price and time differences between waves.

پرسش و پاسخ با گلن نیلی-104

We all know Wave Theory is best suited for stock averages and non-consumable items, not individual companies. Using only price data to count waves, how can one pick the best stocks?

ANSWER:

This is a great question and one many of you have had to grappled with, I’m sure. Personally, I never attempt wave counts on individual companies, but I do regularly follow stock averages, such as the S&P 500 (which works great). If I managed a fund and wanted to use wave theory as a basis for choosing and trading stocks, this is how I’d go about it.

First and foremost, using a major stock average (i.e., the S&P 500, the Nasdaq, Russell 5000, etc.), I would determine whether the primary trend is up or down. From there, I would break that particular stock average into its component parts or sectors (industrials, technology, retail, financials, etc.). I’d then construct wave counts on each sector to see how its trend agreed with the larger average. Of all the sectors analyzed, I’d choose the TOP 3-5 that most agreed with the larger average’s trend or that appeared the strongest. Then I would pick the 3-5 largest stocks in that sector and invest in them. 

I would not attempt analysis on individual stocks. Not only do I think it is unnecessary and time-consuming, but probably not productive. Sectors and averages work much better, as Francisco indicates in his question.

پرسش و پاسخ با گلن نیلی-103

Answers to Common Elliott and NEoWave Questions

ANSWER:

Over the last 3 years, I’ve answered more than 100 important questions in this forum on NEoWave, its relation to Elliott Wave, on pattern development, wave relationships and new NEoWave phenomenon. 

With the recent addition of a SEARCH function you can use this “Question of the Week” forum to easily find answers to many of your burning questions. Simply type in a few keywords in the “Search” window at left. In seconds you will be presented with a list of possible answers. Read the title of each to quickly decide if it addresses your query. 

You are invited to use this valuable resource, any time, 24-hours-a-day. Best of all, you don’t have to be a subscriber to benefit – its FREE to the public!

پرسش و پاسخ با گلن نیلی-102

I have been practicing orthodox Elliott Wave for years. If I upgrade to NEoWave, would it be difficult to understand? I’m concerned NEoWave theory appears to be in opposition to Elliott Wave.

ANSWER:

This is a very interesting question with many subtle, probably unintended, facets. First, suggesting NEoWave is in opposition to Elliott Wave is like saying calculus is in opposition to algebra. The one area in which there may exist opposition is in the conclusions of a NEoWave analyst compared to that of an orthodox Elliott Wave analyst. Your question also implies that if something is difficult, even if it is more accurate, it may not be worth learning. When it comes to the world of money and investing, isn’t increased precision and accuracy the whole point?

Most people have no personal, day-to-day need for calculus. In fact, most people’s attitude is like that of Mary Johnson (taken from the internet) who said, “My best day in Calc 101 at Southern Cal was the day I had to cut class to get a root canal.

Fortunately, for the rest of us, a very small number of people do love and understand calculus and know how to apply it to solve complex, real-world problems. Some simple applications of calculus include determining the surface area of a three dimensional object, the volume of a three dimensional object, water pressure at different depths, air pressure at different heights, and probabilities of complex events. All important questions when developing consumer products, cars, airplanes, forecasting the weather, etc. 

Even though you did not say it directly, I sense you are indirectly asking me “Is NEoWave worth learning – does the extra complexity pay off in the end?” and the answer to that question is “Absolutely”! In the near future I will prove my answer, much to the dismay of orthodox Elliott Wave analyst’s, when I release “NEOWAVE: A History of Success!” That presentation will show dozens of highly accurate market calls made by me over the last 25+ years – many at the time were contrary to those made by the orthodox Elliott Wave camp – which will prove the accuracy and superiority of NEoWave.

پرسش و پاسخ با گلن نیلی-101

How much leverage do you suggest for trading your futures recommendations?

ANSWER:

Futures contracts are highly leveraged instruments (e.g., Gold futures require only about $5000 to control $90,000 of value), so no additional leverage is required or recommended. When following NEoWave recommendations, your focus should be on keeping risk-per-trade in the 1-2% range based on total capital. 

For example, if you have $100,000 to invest, your per trade risk should be no more than $2,000. When I say “Go 50% Long,” what I mean is risk 1% of capital on that particular trade. Being 100% Long means risking 2% of capital. 

You have no control over what a market will do, you only have control of how much risk you will take on each trade. It is your ability to control risk, and what you do with it, that alone decides whether you will be a successful trader or not.

پرسش و پاسخ با گلن نیلی-100

What makes NEoWave better than Elliott Wave?

ANSWER:

A customer in France made this query, which I’m surprised has never been addressed in this forum. Its answer is the reason I felt compelled to write “Mastering Elliott Wave” (I should have called it Mastering NEoWave) and why I’m so passionate about making NEoWave the “defacto” wave analysis standard around the world. 

The three core elements of Elliott Wave are the Fibonacci number series, pattern recognition and the Golden ratio (.618). All three elements have a “forecasting” or “anticipatory” aspect, where the analyst is expecting the market to move up or down a certain number of “waves” (a concept not defined in any literature until Mastering Elliott Wave), adhere to a certain design and have specific relationships. 

The three core elements of NEoWave are Logic (e.g., a strong correction must yield a powerful move), self-defining price/time Limits (e.g., a smaller degree pattern cannot take more time and price than a larger degree pattern) AND Self-Confirmation (i.e., the market’s post-pattern behavior determines whether your prior structural analysis was correct). All three NEoWave elements have a “back-casting” or “reactionary” aspect, where the analyst is making sure (after the fact) a pattern did not take too much or too little time, that it was not too complex or too simple AND that post-pattern price action achieved the minimum movement required to confirm the prior pattern. 

For example, in 1988 (for those who remember), I was one of the only bullish analysts in the world. Among orthodox Elliott Wave practitioners, who were extremely bearish (and remained that way for most of the last 20 years!), I stood alone and was heavily ridiculed for my extremely bullish, long-term forecast. It was the LOGIC of NEoWave that allowed me to remain so adamantly and confidently bullish on the U.S. stock market (despite massive public condemnation) and even in the face of negative national and international news. 

It was NEoWave that allowed me to turn adamantly bearish on the U.S. stock market near the highs of 2000 and then, two years later, turn bullish again just six months after the 2002 low. Finally, in January of 2008 – once again, despite strong opposition – I turn adamantly bearish on the U.S. stock market. It was NEoWave that gave me the courage to announce to the world, in mid January 2008, that a new bear market began and that there was virtually nothing that could be done to stop the downward spiral of the U.S. stock market for the next 4-6 years!

In its orthodox form, Elliott Wave never allows for such dogmatic forecasts. To the contrary, Elliott Wave typically allows for multiple, completely contradictory scenarios. If you have simultaneously bullish and bearish counts it is of little value for trading.

In conclusion, the same way calculus elevated mathematics beyond algebra and trigonometry, the logical, self-defining limits and self-confirming aspects of NEoWave raise the field of wave analysis (and technical analysis in general) above the realm of opinion and hearsay and closer to the realm of science and fact.